There's still time to stack more physical... with Christmas just around the corner it's a fantastic gift to give and receive. Price today is in the low 33s and I expect by the time the fiscal cliff battle is in full effect we'll be in the high 30s regardless of any short term pull back we see this month or next.

If you haven't gotten into physical Silver yet i'm sure there's a ton of us here who can help with any questions you might have. I know I personally got someone here on the boards to start investing into it and now he's as addicted as the rest of us...

The only problem I'm having is finding enough people to sell it to me!

"And now that the legislators and do-gooders have so futilely inflicted so many systems upon society, may they finally end where they should have begun: May they reject all systems, and try liberty; for liberty is an acknowledgment of faith in God and His works." - Bastiat

"It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere." - Voltaire

You do realize that nearly all of the buyers of paper silver have no interest in wanting physical just like the sellers have no interest in delivering. So physical silver is not suppressed by any sort of manipulation. As I have said, if there was price suppression(ie price controls) there would be shortages, which is there not.

I could see bullion bank suppression by their "fractional reserve" banking, but this has more to do with people who actually believe they hold physical and who for the most part want physical.

You do realize that nearly all of the buyers of paper silver have no interest in wanting physical just like the sellers have no interest in delivering. So physical silver is not suppressed by any sort of manipulation. As I have said, if there was price suppression(ie price controls) there would be shortages, which is there not.

I guess that all depends on how loosely the word "shortage" is used. The same exact thing you wrote could be said of US currency versus its former promise of gold backing -- if we were in the year 1928 - with no future hindsight or crystal ball.

Think about it: most people in 1928 had no interest in taking possession of the physical, just as the banks had no interest in delivering (even if they could). They were happy to just trade in paper derivatives, which just so happened to GROSSLY OUTNUMBER the physical it misrepresented. There was manipulation, there were price controls, and while there were no "APPARENT" shortages, there were, in fact, massive shortages, which only started to be revealed in 1929.

The same thing is true of physical now. Excluding derivatives that have no claim to any underlying physical, there are more RIGHT NOW paper claims (binding contracts for delivery) than there is physical in existence. However, just like in 1928 and prior, most people remain content to trade in derivatives.

It would be more accurate to say that there is no "run" on silver--not that there is no shortage. Without regard to anyone's RIGHT NOW intentions, if there was a run on silver (the music stops and most find themselves scrambling for non-existent chairs), the shortages that really do exist RIGHT NOW would be revealed, even as paper decouples from physical.

I could see bullion bank suppression by their "fractional reserve" banking, but this has more to do with people who actually believe they hold physical and who for the most part want physical.

You're using disparate terms like belief and want, when the only fundamental here is LEGAL CLAIM - regardless of anyone's beliefs, or their current intentions, or their current wants. The beliefs, wants AND intentions of most people underwent dramatic changes from 1928 to 1934.

Shortages does not mean zero availability. That is the epitome of a shortage, but not the definition. The fact that limited numbers of people could safely and quickly withdraw everything from banks back in 1928 DID NOT MEAN that there were no shortages. There were, even then. Likewise, the fact that a LIMITED NUMBER of people can acquire a limited quantity of physical now does not mean that there are no shortages now. At best, there is no shortage of paper only.

I guess that all depends on how loosely the word "shortage" is used. The same exact thing you wrote could be said of US currency versus its former promise of gold backing -- if we were in the year 1928 - with no future hindsight or crystal ball.

Think about it: most people in 1928 had no interest in taking possession of the physical, just as the banks had no interest in delivering (even if they could). They were happy to just trade in paper derivatives, which just so happened to GROSSLY OUTNUMBER the physical it misrepresented. There was manipulation, there were price controls, and while there were no "APPARENT" shortages, there were, in fact, massive shortages, which only started to be revealed in 1929.

The same thing is true of physical now. Excluding derivatives that have no claim to any underlying physical, there are more RIGHT NOW paper claims (binding contracts for delivery) than there is physical in existence. However, just like in 1928 and prior, most people remain content to trade in derivatives.

It would be more accurate to say that there is no "run" on silver--not that there is no shortage. Without regard to anyone's RIGHT NOW intentions, if there was a run on silver (the music stops and most find themselves scrambling for non-existent chairs), the shortages that really do exist RIGHT NOW would be revealed, even as paper decouples from physical.

The difference now and then is gold and silver were legal currency, now they are not. Now people don't ultimately need gold or silver to pay debts. Most are leveraged and do not have the capital to buy or the physical to sell all of their contracts. This is not some sort of hidden secret only silverbugs or goldbugs know. As long as the traders believe the counter party is good for the cash, they are fine. Physical gold and silver are now seen as commodities or stores of value, which is why people would want the physical and not the paper. When people actually want the physical for whatever reason, they will go for the physical.

I imagine the paper markets will collapse when people actually do want physical because everyone will know the paper markets are no good. That time as not yet come.

You're using disparate terms like belief and want, when the only fundamental here is LEGAL CLAIM - regardless of anyone's beliefs, or their current intentions, or their current wants. The beliefs, wants AND intentions of most people underwent dramatic changes from 1928 to 1934.

Shortages does not mean zero availability. That is the epitome of a shortage, but not the definition. The fact that limited numbers of people could safely and quickly withdraw everything from banks back in 1928 DID NOT MEAN that there were no shortages. There were, even then. Likewise, the fact that a LIMITED NUMBER of people can acquire a limited quantity of physical now does not mean that there are no shortages now. At best, there is no shortage of paper only.

Legal claim means very little since one can not create something out of no where. I assume the gold leases will be settled in cash in the future. Which is why I hold physical or at worst allocated physical funds.

Again, the difference then was gold and silver were currency. There was a fixed dollar amount for both. Now there are prices that can move up and down. Because of this, there really will never be shortages per say, only higher prices. So until prices for physical move higher rapidly, there are no "shortages" or manipulation.

The difference now and then is gold and silver were legal currency, now they are not. Now people don't ultimately need gold or silver to pay debts.

That's begging the question, don't you think? I would argue that I do indeed "need" gold and silver (and platinum, palladium, nickel and copper), not just to "pay debts", but just to transact on a daily basis. In fact, I "need" it even more, since My Artificially Inflicted "need" for fiat currency is about as needed as tapeworm food.

Most are leveraged and do not have the capital to buy or the physical to sell all of their contracts. This is not some sort of hidden secret only silverbugs or goldbugs know. As long as the traders believe the counter party is good for the cash, they are fine.

Yeah? Paper derivatives in 1928 were also nothing more than a heap of oversold contracts. This not some sort of hidden secret that only silverbugs or goldbugs know. The "traders" (read=currency holders) at that time believed that the "counter party" (read=bank) was "good for the cash" (read=all bills redeemable in coin the aggregate).

The fact that nobody was caught with their pants down at that particular time in 1928 did not mean "they were fine", unless we could also say that all the passengers on the Titanic were fine after the berg was hit, so long as everyone believed there were enough lifeboats for everyone. The collapse of all the untenable, unsustainable number of contradictory counter-party claims was an inevitability, without regard to anyone's belief, because there really weren't enough gold lifeboats. Couple that with the fact that hitting an iceberg was a mathematical certainty.

Physical gold and silver are now seen as commodities or stores of value, which is why people would want the physical and not the paper. When people actually want the physical for whatever reason, they will go for the physical....

Now "seen as"? Seen as by who? And which "people would want"? From whose perspective are you speaking, and therefore begging the question once again?

I imagine the paper markets will collapse when people actually do want physical because everyone will know the paper markets are no good. That time as not yet come.

We've hit the icebergs, and it is a mathematical certainty that the fiat currency ship will sink (as it was designed to do), and with it all the paper markets. The time for a mad rush for lifeboats hasn't come yet, but that isn't to the credit of the paper markets.

Legal claim means very little since one can not create something out of no where. I assume the gold leases will be settled in cash in the future. Which is why I hold physical or at worst allocated physical funds.

It's worse that that. MF Global was the legal precedent that tested the strength of so-called allocated physical, and what could be gotten away with in a counter-party melee. That alone made allocated physical (WHERE NO COUNTER PARTY CLAIMS EXIST) completely worthless to me. If you don't hold the physical, you don't own shit. If you don't think you're part of counter party claims and risk, think again. Nothing is sacred. Everything will be "settled for [then worthless] cash" in the future. Everything--including allocated holding claims when they are seized, and converted into counter party claims.

Again, the difference then was gold and silver were currency. There was a fixed dollar amount for both.

No, there is absolutely no difference. US currency (gold or silver backed) always had "prices" (in goods and services) that went up and down--but that's a red herring to the far more relevant fact that a fixed nominal "dollar value" for gold and silver derivatives, in both cases, were tied to specific quantities of underlying physical-that-does-not-exist.

Now there are prices that can move up and down. Because of this, there really will never be shortages per say, only higher prices.

Shortages are a function of availability at a given price. As one poster pointed out, and many have experienced here, just because you have a low price does not mean that there are no shortages. Which brings us to the question of "shortage of WHAT?". There is no shortage of paper that affects the price of physical, but if the price of the paper drops to the point where there is no physical available at that price, then the goof-stupid "no shortage" illusion is revealed for the bullshit that it is.

If silver drops to $20 (based primarily on derivatives), I may be unable to get ANY physical at that price. If, on the other hand, I offered $50, suddenly physical comes out of the woodwork, with practically everyone willing to sell at that price. That fact alone proves, in the absolute, that paper and physical are only loosely coupled--with different prices and availabilities of each at different times--which means that paper is, to that extent, manipulating and distorting the physical market.

That's begging the question, don't you think? I would argue that I do indeed "need" gold and silver (and platinum, palladium, nickel and copper), not just to "pay debts", but just to transact on a daily basis. In fact, I "need" it even more, since My Artificially Inflicted "need" for fiat currency is about as needed as tapeworm food.

Not at all. It is no longer money.

Yeah? Paper derivatives in 1928 were also nothing more than a heap of oversold contracts. This not some sort of hidden secret that only silverbugs or goldbugs know. The "traders" (read=currency holders) at that time believed that the "counter party" (read=bank) was "good for the cash" (read=all bills redeemable in coin the aggregate).

The fact that nobody was caught with their pants down at that particular time in 1928 did not mean "they were fine", unless we could also say that all the passengers on the Titanic were fine after the berg was hit, so long as everyone believed there were enough lifeboats for everyone. The collapse of all the untenable, unsustainable number of contradictory counter-party claims was an inevitability, without regard to anyone's belief, because there really weren't enough gold lifeboats. Couple that with the fact that hitting an iceberg was a mathematical certainty.

This is because silver was used as money. It is what debts were denominated in. People don't need silver to buy other goods. Now you can be made whole with fiat money, whereas before silver was the money. How are you going to make someone whole with something you don't have in the first place. Silver WAS the life boat, now it is not.

Today, most people see silver is a commodity. So much of what is produced is consumed. It's price is discovered as it is produced and consumed and this goes along perfectly with the paper markets.

I would equate the 1928 scenario to a bunch of consumers of silver holding contracts in which they needed the actual physical and then it turns out there is very little to be had. As you said, everything was not alright when they bought the contracts, even though they thought it was. When reality set in, the price of physical would go much higher. But this is not what is happening. Silver is produced and consumed pretty consistently.

Shortages are a function of availability at a given price. As one poster pointed out, and many have experienced here, just because you have a low price does not mean that there are no shortages. Which brings us to the question of "shortage of WHAT?". There is no shortage of paper that affects the price of physical, but if the price of the paper drops to the point where there is no physical available at that price, then the goof-stupid "no shortage" illusion is revealed for the bullshit that it is.

If silver drops to $20 (based primarily on derivatives), I may be unable to get ANY physical at that price. If, on the other hand, I offered $50, suddenly physical comes out of the woodwork, with practically everyone willing to sell at that price. That fact alone proves, in the absolute, that paper and physical are only loosely coupled--with different prices and availabilities of each at different times--which means that paper is, to that extent, manipulating and distorting the physical market.

Yes, because as you know, the paper market acts as a price discovery mechanism. The fact that physical trades around it, is evidence of no manipulation. If prices were manipulated down in the paper markets, supplies at that level would not exist. If the paper market manipulated the prices higher, physical would not be bought at those levels.

I am not arguing silver prices won't go up. I am saying the price isn't being suppressed by someone shorting contracts on the comex.

Yes, because as you know, the paper market acts as a price discovery mechanism.

Yeah, a price discovery mechanism for physical + paper (orders of magnitude more paper). The only way that this so-called "price discovery" mechanism would accurately reflect physical is if they existed on a one for one basis.

The fact that physical trades around it, is evidence of no manipulation.

Nonsense. Did you miss the part where gold also traded around currency in 1928? That was not "evidence of no manipulation".

If prices were manipulated down in the paper markets, supplies at that level would not exist.

That's one test of manipulation, thank you. And there is your evidence, because availability of physical supply DOES diminish dramatically when PM's dip to low price levels.

I am not arguing silver prices won't go up. I am saying the price isn't being suppressed by someone shorting contracts on the comex.

I have deliberately avoided ANY reference to COMEX or to any possible gaming of PM prices (as with longs against shorts). I don't give a rat's ass about that in the context of our discussion, because the base fundamentals are much, much simpler than that.

Whenever derivatives--multiple and contradictory claims to the same existing underlying physical wealth--are created and routinely traded, that is the very essence of INFLATION, and a form of price manipulation in and of itself.

If we take the argument to the logical conclusion, we would have to say that sports teams are also manipulated seeing as you can bet on the Super Bowl without owning a sports team.

There's enough evidence out there to support both the manipulation of silver and gold. All you gotta do is find it.

Even Ron Paul mentions in end the fed that he thinks the price of gold is manipulated. The plunge protection team has the right to do anything they want to any stock. It's not outside of the realm of possibility at all.

Gold and Silver, more so gold, are the best indicators of the state of fiat currency it's absolutely plausible that these prices are manipulated.

If we take the argument to the logical conclusion, we would have to say that sports teams are also manipulated seeing as you can bet on the Super Bowl without owning a sports team.

First of all, I don't count anything that doesn't create a claim to physical. But it's an apples to transmissions non-sequitur anyway, as the risk/reward 'trades', if you want to call them that, have nothing to do with exchanges of teams or players.

Yeah, a price discovery mechanism for physical + paper (orders of magnitude more paper). The only way that this so-called "price discovery" mechanism would accurately reflect physical is if they existed on a one for one basis.

For the people who buy and use physical it is.

That's one test of manipulation, thank you. And there is your evidence, because availability of physical supply DOES diminish dramatically when PM's dip to low price levels.

Yes, but that is only temporary. People were saying "APMEX is sold out of Eagles" when silver dropped from 50 to 44 nearly overnight, but that didn't last. It is just a silverbig cliche.

I will say this.

You are assuming almost everyone who holds paper, will want physical. Your example is 1928, which is a terrible comparison because at that time it is obvious everyone would want physical. IT WAS THEIR MONEY. Maybe people will want physical in the future, maybe they will abandon it. Traders continue to trade paper when they know not all of it is backed by physical. To me it is pretty obvious it is because they are not actually interested in owning physical.

Where producers meet consumers is where the price is established, on the actual physical market. The paper market acts as a buffer, but the supply or demand for physical can not be masked for long simple because so much of what is mined is consumed.

RonPaulForums.com / LibertyForest.com is a grassroots web site with absolutely no official connection to Ron Paul or any election campaign. RonPaulForums.com / LibertyForest.com is privately owned and operated.